Frank Carra drives a truck for Weide Transport Ltd (WTL). During an otherwise routine journey, a deer jumped onto the highway and caused Carra to swerve out of his lane and onto a strip of gravel that divided northbound and southbound traffic. Carra's truck collided with a signpost, which was left bent over and protruding about 50 centimetres from the ground. Carra could not remove the post and while he thought about notifying the police, he failed to do so. About a day later, Samuel Oke was travelling in the opposite direction on the same highway. Although the solid yellow lines on the road prohibited such a manoeuvre, Oke attempted to pass a slow-moving vehicle by driving on the gravel divider. As he did so, the bent post rammed through his car's floorboards and impaled his chest. Oke died instantly. His widow has now sued Carra and WTL. In defence, they rely on three arguments. First, they say that Oke's death was the result of a "freak accident." Second, they say that Oke was carelessly responsible for his own death. And third, they argue that since Carra was not legally responsible for colliding with the post (which is true), they did not do anything wrong. Discuss those arguments and explain the likelihood that a court would impose liability.